Polymarket’s CLOB v2 upgrade ships new exchange contracts, pUSD collateral, and $1M in liquidity rewards to deepen books and court professional market makers.

Polymarket’s CLOB v2 upgrade went live on April 28 at around 11:00 UTC, after a brief maintenance window that cleared existing order books and cut over traffic to a rebuilt exchange stack.
According to the project’s changelog, the coordinated release introduces “new Exchange contracts, a rewritten CLOB backend, and a new collateral token (Polymarket USD, or pUSD),” with no backward compatibility for legacy integrations.

CLOB v2 goes live with fresh contracts and collateral

The platform’s documentation describes Polymarket’s CLOB as a “hybrid‑decentralized trading system — offchain order matching with onchain settlement via the Exchange,” now upgraded to CTF Exchange V2 and Neg Risk CTF Exchange V2 for improved speed and scale.
Developers are required to migrate to the new @polymarket/clob-client-v2 or py-clob-client-v2 SDKs, with LinkedIn engineering notes warning that “no update means no execution” for bots and API integrations after the cutover.

The upgrade also adds support for 1271 signatures and on‑chain attribution codes for builders, making it easier for institutional players and front‑ends to route orders, track flow, and share in fee revenue.
In an earlier summary on X, community contributor Vihan Singh wrote that the team is “upgrading the entire Polymarket exchange stack… new contracts. New order book. New collateral token,” and urged traders to update SDKs before the migration.

$1M liquidity rewards aim at market makers

Alongside CLOB v2, Polymarket announced a $1 million liquidity rewards program meant to draw in market makers and deepen order books across its finance, politics, and culture markets.
The incentives build on a fee overhaul that, according to analyst estimates cited by Phemex, is expected to generate “approximately $800,000 to $1 million daily” on current volumes while funding a Maker Rebates Program that pays USDC rebates to liquidity providers.

On‑chain data referenced by KuCoin shows roughly $9.55 billion in 30‑day trading volume, implying about $25 million in monthly fee revenue, or an annualized run‑rate near $300 million.
Polymarket’s own markets page now promotes hundreds of live “Rewards 100, 4.5, 100” markets with the tagline “The World’s Largest Prediction Market,” underscoring its ambition to be the default venue for event‑driven flow.

With CLOB v2, pUSD collateral, and a seven‑figure liquidity pool aimed squarely at market makers, the platform is pushing closer to institutional‑grade microstructure at the very moment prediction markets are drawing scrutiny from U.S. regulators and a rush of new retail users.

A Manhattan federal judge has denied Sam Bankman-Fried’s bid for a new trial, saying there was no new evidence or witnesses to warrant reopening his fraud-and-money-laundering case. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the 2023 trial and later sentenced Bankman-Fried to 25 years in prison, rejected the defense’s claims in an order issued this week.

Bankman-Fried had sought a new trial in February to be overseen by a different judge—a rare maneuver filed without his attorneys’ input while an appeals court was weighing the conviction and sentence. Kaplan’s ruling makes clear that he viewed the motion as lacking merit and as part of an effort to rehabilitate Bankman-Fried’s public image after FTX’s collapse.

“This motion appears to be one part of a plan to rescue his reputation that Bankman-Fried hatched and even committed to writing after FTX declared bankruptcy but before he was indicted.”

In the order, Kaplan specifically rejected the assertion that three former FTX executives could counter the government’s position that FTX was insolvent. He described the claim as “baseless on multiple independently sufficient levels.”

Bankman-Fried had argued that two former FTX executives who did not testify—Ryan Salame, the former CEO of FTX’s Bahamian arm, and Daniel Chapsky, FTX’s former head of data science—could have provided testimony countering the government’s insolvency narrative. Salame has since pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations and operating an illegal money-transmitting business and was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison in May 2024. Chapsky, who also faced charges, did not testify at trial. A third figure, Nishad Singh, FTX’s former engineering lead who cut a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid jail and testified against Bankman-Fried, was alleged to have changed his testimony “following threats from the government.”

Kaplan noted that Bankman-Fried could have attempted to compel testimony from these individuals but did not, and that the claim of government pressure driving their decisions was “wildly conspiratorial and entirely contradicted by the record.” The judge also emphasized that Bankman-Fried’s conviction followed seven criminal charges related to fraud and money laundering, centered on the transfer of billions of dollars of customer funds from FTX to Alameda Research for high-risk trades that contributed to the exchange’s collapse. Bankman-Fried is currently held at a federal prison in Lompoc, California.

Key takeaways

• What was denied: A bid for a new trial based on alleged “new evidence,” with Kaplan ruling the claim baseless and the witnesses not newly discovered.
• Who was at the center of the request: Three former FTX executives—Ryan Salame, Daniel Chapsky, and Nishad Singh—who the defense said could counter government assertions about insolvency.
• Notable context on the witnesses: Salame pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations and operating an unlawful money-transmitting business; Singh testified against Bankman-Fried after striking a plea deal; Chapsky did not testify at trial.
• Procedural nuance: The motion was filed in February to be heard by a different judge and was pursued without Bankman-Fried’s lawyers, while an appeals court reviewed his conviction and sentence.
• What this means for the case: Kaplan casts doubt on the viability of reopening the trial, signaling a high evidentiary bar for similar motions moving forward.

What the ruling clarifies about the insolvency narrative

The heart of Bankman-Fried’s defense rested on whether new testimony from Salame, Chapsky, or Singh could alter the government’s portrayal of FTX’s finances. Kaplan’s assessment makes explicit that simply proposing familiar names as potential witnesses does not constitute “new” evidence, especially when the individuals were known to Bankman-Fried long before the trial and had been considered for testimony previously. The court’s language underscores a careful standard for post-trial relief: new evidence must genuinely change the factual landscape of the case, not simply repackage existing information or reframe arguments after a conviction.

Context within the broader FTX saga

The Bankman-Fried case sits within the larger FTX collapse and the ensuing prosecutions of several executives tied to the exchange’s downfall. The seven charges he faced at trial encompassed fraud and money laundering allegations tied to the alleged improper transfer of customer funds to Alameda Research to execute risky trades. Kaplan’s ruling reaffirms the trajectory of the case—the government’s portrayal of insolvency and the misuse of customer funds stands central to the narrative that secured Bankman-Fried’s conviction and lengthy prison sentence. The status of the various co-defendants, their cooperation agreements, and any subsequent testimony will continue to influence related proceedings and potential appeals.

What’s next for the legal process?

With the new-trial bid rejected, the focus shifts to the appellate process and any further motions that might arise as Bankman-Fried and his defense team navigate potential avenues for relief. While the current ruling narrows the grounds for reopening the trial, appellate considerations often hinge on technical aspects of trial procedure and evidentiary standards, rather than re-litigating the facts. Investors, traders, and industry observers will want to monitor whether the defense pursues subsequent avenues or leverages related cases as part of a broader strategy around the FTX collapse and its regulatory implications.

Readers should watch for updates on the appeals timeline and any additional disclosures from the parties as they position themselves for the next phase of this high-profile financial-crypto crackdown case.

Startale Group is integrating Sunnyside Labs’ Privacy Boost directly into its Sony-backed Soneium super app, giving users fast, self-custodial shielding and zk-powered private payments without sacrificing auditability or everyday UX.

Startale Group has named Privacy Boost as the official privacy partner for the Startale App, in a move that brings self-custodial, onchain privacy features directly into a consumer gateway to Soneium, the Sony-affiliated blockchain.

Startale App adds native, opt-in onchain privacy

Under the partnership, Privacy Boost will deploy natively on Soneium and integrate into the Startale App, giving users the option to shield assets, send private transfers, and route payments through privacy-preserving flows while retaining control of their keys.

The integration is positioned as a milestone in the Startale App’s evolution into a full consumer front door for the Soneium ecosystem, which is being co-developed by Sony Block Solutions Labs. It also marks the first time Privacy Boost’s technology is embedded in a consumer-facing application, shifting it from infrastructure tooling into an end-user product surface.

The Startale App is designed to make the onchain economy accessible to mainstream users, offering asset management, payments, Mini Apps, and ecosystem reward features in a single interface.
As usage scales, Startale and Sunnyside Labs are explicitly targeting the visibility problem of public blockchains, where balances, transfer sizes, and counterparties are exposed by default.

ZK + TEE stack targets consumer speed and compliance

Privacy Boost brings a hybrid architecture that combines zero-knowledge proofs with trusted execution environments, aiming to deliver private transactions at consumer-grade speed and scale.
The system targets sub-500 millisecond proof generation and throughput exceeding 1,800 transactions per second, while keeping assets in user-controlled wallets and supporting selective auditability for compliance and regulatory checks.

“Not every transaction needs to be private, but every user should have the choice,” said Sota Watanabe, CEO of Startale Group. “With Privacy Boost integrated into the Startale App, privacy becomes something users can enable when it matters. It puts control in their hands to decide when and how they protect their onchain activity. That is what a true SuperApp should deliver.”

As part of the rollout, Privacy Boost will deploy its full protocol stack on Soneium, including smart contracts and TEE infrastructure, making private transfers a native building block for developers on the network. Inside the Startale App, the integration will run via SDK, enabling shielding assets into private pools, private transfers that hide balances and counterparties, and privacy-preserving payment flows intended to support future crypto card functionality.

“Startale is serious about bringing privacy to consumer crypto, from everyday payments and card spending to mini apps,” said Taem Park, co-founder and CEO of Sunnyside Labs. “These are exactly the use cases Privacy Boost was built for, high-performance privacy at consumer scale, with an SDK designed for native application and mini app integration alike.”

The companies say the integration is architected to scale alongside the Startale App’s expansion into new payment flows, Mini Apps, and broader ecosystem integrations, embedding privacy as a default consideration across user interactions rather than an afterthought. For Startale, it fits into a broader mission of “bringing the world on-chain” through Astar Network, Soneium, and consumer products like the Startale App, while Sunnyside Labs positions Privacy Boost as enterprise-grade, self-custodial privacy infrastructure aligned with public-chain principles.

Visa partners with WeFi to enable direct stablecoin spending from self-custody wallets on Visa’s network, bypassing exchanges and pressuring banks’ FX roles.

Visa’s new partnership with WeFi is designed to make stablecoin balances in self‑custody wallets spendable anywhere Visa is accepted, without users first moving funds through centralized exchanges or bank accounts. WeFi describes itself as a “de‑bank” and “on‑chain bank,” offering both self‑custody and custodial wallets plus card rails, and now tying those directly into Visa so that stablecoin funding and fiat settlement happen behind the scenes while the front‑end looks like a normal card payment.

Stablecoins plug into Visa without parking on exchanges

According to a report from Yahoo Finance, Visa and WeFi will “enable users to utilize stablecoin‑backed balances through familiar payment options,” a model executives frame as merging “on‑chain banking” with Visa’s global network. Mathieu Altwegg, Visa’s head of product and solutions for Europe, said the objective is to “connect new value forms to payment experiences that people are already familiar with, all while adhering to existing regulatory frameworks.”

The rollout starts in select European, Asian, and Latin American markets, with Visa stressing that the initial focus will be on regulated stablecoins that fit into existing licensing regimes such as Europe’s MiCA. A ChainNess summary of the partnership notes that WeFi plans to offer personal IBANs that “can be used like traditional bank accounts,” but with stablecoins as the funding layer and Visa as the acceptance network.

Banks’ FX and settlement role comes under pressure

For users, the pitch is simple: hold stablecoins in a self‑custody wallet, tap a Visa card or use familiar payment flows, and let the conversion and settlement logic run under the hood at the protocol and network layers. As WeFi’s own marketing puts it, the aim is to “bring stablecoins from theory into real, practical utility,” using Visa as the bridge that gives merchants the same experience and risk profile they’re used to, while users stay on‑chain.

That model compresses some of the traditional roles of banks in foreign exchange and cross‑border settlement. If stablecoin balances can fund card payments directly and settle almost instantly through Visa’s networks, banks risk losing a slice of fee revenue historically tied to slow, account‑based FX flows and correspondent banking.

Visa has been building toward this for several years, from its Bridge stablecoin card‑issuing product to a stablecoin payout pilot for gig workers and a more recent partnership with BVNK for stablecoin‑powered Visa Direct payments. The WeFi tie‑up extends that strategy into the realm of self‑custody and “on‑chain banking,” moving stablecoins from the edges of the system into everyday card payments at scale.

A wave of crypto shutdowns is unfolding across the industry this year, hitting projects from trading platforms to analytics tools.

April was no exception, as decentralized email service Dmail said it is shutting down due to high infrastructure costs, failed fundraising and weak token utility.

“In prior cycles, projects could extend runway through new issuance or venture support,” Roshan Dharia, a restructuring advisor and CEO of crypto holding company Echo Base, told Cointelegraph.

“That path is largely closed, so losses are being recognized earlier, and outcomes are more often wind downs than recoveries,” he said.

Crypto built a fast way to raise capital through tokens, but still lacks a framework to unwind it when things go wrong, making it difficult to reorganize claims or coordinate stakeholders once conditions deteriorate.

Dmail’s token market cap fell below $1 million in November. Source: CoinGecko

Token funding falters as projects unwind

As market conditions have tightened in recent months, projects are drifting into slow declines instead of the abrupt collapses seen in past crypto downturns. Projects are deteriorating over time as user activity declines, treasuries weaken and funding options narrow.

“You see this in cases like Tally and Step Finance, where there is no single failure point, just a steady decline in treasury value and user activity that compresses optionality over time,” said Dharia.

DAO tooling platform Tally said it was winding down after concluding the market for governance tooling had yet to develop at scale, while Step Finance moved to shut down after a hack, saying efforts to secure financing or a sale failed to produce a viable outcome.

Step Finance suffered a $40 million security breach in January. Source: Step Finance

Related: Ethereum’s EEZ could pull other blockchains into its orbit

Some breakdowns still follow more familiar patterns. BlockFills filed for bankruptcy in March after freezing withdrawals. Its creditor, Dominion Capital, alleged in a lawsuit that the firm commingled customer assets to cover company losses.

Tokens once offered a fallback, allowing teams to raise capital or subsidize growth, but that mechanism is no longer as reliable, Dharia said. 

He added:

Earlier cycles treated tokens as a primary funding mechanism with an implied alignment between users, holders and operators. That alignment has proven fragile in stressed scenarios, particularly where token holders lack defined rights or recourse.”

Some are starting to treat tokens as claims that may need to be consolidated or reworked. In March, Across Protocol proposed a token-to-equity buyout. Risk Labs, the team behind Across, said the token and decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) structure limited its ability to close deals with enterprises and institutions.

Crypto lacks a playbook for restructuring

Unlike traditional companies, most crypto projects lack a clear path to restructure once conditions deteriorate. Corporate bankruptcies provide mechanisms to pause obligations, renegotiate with creditors and reorganize capital structures. 

In crypto, such avenues are often missing or poorly defined.

Each month in 2026 had a crypto project announcing shutdowns. Source: Stacy Muur

Related: Prediction market battle gets closer to Supreme Court

Crypto projects often operate through a mix of foundations, offshore entities and token-based communities, with no unified legal structure governing liabilities. In restructuring, token holders typically have no formal claims on assets or cash flows.

That limits what they can do under pressure. Projects are often left choosing between raising new capital on worse terms or shutting down without a clear hierarchy of claims or a way to bind stakeholders to an outcome, entirely.

“Most projects do not have access to formal restructuring tools, and their stakeholder base is fragmented across token holders, equity investors, and users with no clear hierarchy or enforcement mechanism,” said Dharia. 

“That makes it difficult to recapitalize, restructure obligations, or run a controlled process to preserve value. In that environment, once liquidity tightens, outcomes tend to default to wind downs or distressed asset sales rather than coordinated recoveries,” he said.

Limited recovery paths in token-based systems

Tokens made it easier and more accessible for crypto companies to raise capital and scale quickly, but offer limited support once conditions deteriorate.

Dharia said the current wave of shutdowns is driven by tighter capital availability and structurally weak balance sheets. Many projects entered the bear market with treasuries heavily concentrated in their own tokens or correlated assets. As prices fell, the runway contracted.

“At the same time, funding channels have narrowed, with more selective venture deployment, weaker token issuance and thinner secondary liquidity limiting both exit and financing options,” Dharia added.

So far this year, projects have more often wound down quietly than attempted formal restructuring. Without clear frameworks to reorganize claims or coordinate stakeholders, recovery paths remain limited.

Some projects have begun exploring ways to consolidate ownership and introduce more formal structures, suggesting parts of the market are starting to adapt after running into the limits of token and decentralized governance models.

Magazine: AI-driven hacks could kill DeFi — unless projects act now

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Bitcoin (BTC) is trading roughly 40% below its October 2025 record high near $126,000 despite its ongoing recovery.

Still, some of the cryptocurrency’s loudest bulls, including billionaire investor Tim Draper and Fundstrat’s co-founder Tom Lee, have not backed down from their $250,000 year-end prediction, a target that would require more than a threefold rally from current levels.

Is that realistic, or is Bitcoin’s latest drawdown a warning that the cycle has already peaked?

Key takeaways:

• Bitcoin’s selloff may resume due to a bearish continuation setup.
• Halving and midterm election fractals appear bearish for the BTC price in 2026.

Veteran trader warns of more BTC price decline

Peter Brandt, a veteran futures market trader, highlighted a channel pattern on the Bitcoin daily chart, which could keep BTC’s odds of rising toward $250,000 this year low.

As of Tuesday, BTC was showing signs of a pullback after testing the upper boundary near $79,500 as resistance. The cryptocurrency risks declining toward the flag’s lower boundary around the $69,000 level by May if the correction persists.

Those of you predicting $250,000 in 2026 need to stop with the mushrooms
This is called a channel

While it does not preclude further price gains, it is NOT a bullish bottoming pattern

Looking broadly, the channel appears like a bear flag pattern. A break below its lower trend line may push the BTC price under $50,000 if the technical setup plays out as intended.

Bitcoin halving fractals show the bear market is midway

BTC’s price cycles have historically followed a clear pattern tied to its halvings every four years.

Cycle peaks have consistently occurred 12 to 18 months after the event. In 2012, the peak arrived in 12 months. The 2016 halving saw its top in 17 months, while the 2020 halving peaked after 18 months.

The April 2024 halving fits this timeline. Bitcoin hit its all-time high of $126,000 in October 2025, roughly 17–18 months later.

Now, in late April 2026 (over 24 months post-halving), BTC trades around $77,000, down 38%–40% from that peak. This alignment suggests the 2025 high may represent the cycle top, casting doubt on new highs for the remainder of 2026.

Bitcoin sell-off may resume in May

A chart by analyst Merlijn The Trader is adding to the cautious narrative, pointing to a recurring “Sell in May” pattern in US mid-term election years.

For instance, BTC dropped 61% in 2014, 65% in 2018, and 66% in 2022, each beginning around May of the election years.

Applying a similar framework to 2026, Merlijn projected a potential decline of over 60%, which would place BTC near the $30,000 level.

In a February report, Capital Group analysts Matt Miller and Chris Buchbinder said midterm elections often raise uncertainty over congressional control and policy direction. As campaign rhetoric heats up in the spring, investors tend to cut risk, slow buying, and brace for volatility.

That backdrop weakens the case for Bitcoin reaching $250,000 by year-end, even though several analysts, including those from Bernstein, see room for a more modest rebound toward the $100,000–$150,000 range.

This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research.

Ethereum price opened at $2,303.33 on April 28, its lowest morning level in over a week, as renewed concerns over stalled Iran ceasefire negotiations pushed Brent crude back above $104 a barrel and weighed on all major crypto assets heading into the Federal Reserve’s rate decision.

Ethereum price opened the April 28 trading session at $2,303.33, its lowest opening level in over a week, according to data from Yahoo Finance cited in its daily crypto price tracker. The 2.8% drop from Monday’s $2,369.84 open came as crypto investors reacted to two simultaneous macro pressures: stalled peace negotiations between the US and Iran and a sharp return of oil prices above $104 per barrel, both of which contributed to a broad risk-off tone across equities and digital assets heading into the Federal Open Market Committee meeting.

Ethereum Price Drop Driven by Iran Talks Stalling and Oil Returning Above $104

As crypto.news reported, the US-Iran standoff re-escalated last week after Iran distanced itself from the Islamabad summit and insisted that diplomacy rather than the ongoing naval blockade was the only path to further peace talks. The US has maintained its blockade as strategic leverage to secure the complete abandonment of several uranium enrichment facilities, a condition Iran has so far refused to accept. Oil prices surged as a result, with Brent crude reclaiming the $104 level that analysts have repeatedly cited as the threshold above which inflation concerns begin to materially delay Federal Reserve rate-cut expectations. The connection runs directly to crypto: higher oil prices pressure inflation figures, which influence whether the FOMC holds or cuts rates, and rate expectations have been one of the primary macro drivers of Bitcoin and Ethereum price action throughout 2026. Bitcoin also fell 1.6% on the April 28 open despite three straight days of opening above $78,000, reflecting that the Iran-driven pressure affected the entire risk asset complex simultaneously.

How the FOMC Meeting Adds a Second Layer of Uncertainty

Crypto investors are watching the April 28 to 29 FOMC meeting closely. Rates are widely expected to remain unchanged for the third consecutive meeting, but the language in the accompanying statement carries substantial weight given the competing signals: improving US-Iran ceasefire sentiment on one side, rising oil prices and sticky inflation on the other. As crypto.news documented, crypto prices have tracked the Iran-oil-FOMC interplay headline by headline throughout April, with Bitcoin and Ethereum both spiking and reversing on each diplomatic signal as market participants try to price the probability of a ceasefire extending or collapsing. The FOMC statement on April 29 will be the clearest signal yet of whether the Fed intends to hold its current restrictive posture through summer or whether improving underlying data gives it room to signal a cut in the second half of 2026.

Ethereum’s Technical Position as It Tests Key Support

ETH’s drop to $2,278 brings it toward the $2,250 to $2,300 support band that technical analysts have identified as the range that must hold to prevent a test of $2,150. As crypto.news tracked, ETH has already demonstrated its sensitivity to Iran signals, having rallied from $2,153 to a six-day high on April 1 when Iran’s president signaled willingness to negotiate, before giving back gains when that willingness failed to convert into a substantive agreement. The 50-day EMA sits at $2,322, slightly above current prices, making it the nearest technical level that would need to be reclaimed for ETH to reestablish short-term bullish momentum. The RSI reading of approximately 35 signals near-oversold conditions without triggering a clear reversal signal, leaving ETH in a range-bound consolidation that remains entirely subject to the next Iran headline or Fed comment.

Ethereum’s all-time high of $4,953.73 was set on August 24, 2025. As of April 28, ETH has recovered from its $1,837 February low but remains approximately 54% below that peak.

BNB price held above $625 on April 28 as the broader crypto market declined, with Bitcoin down 1.6% and Ethereum at a week low, making BNB one of the few large-cap assets to hold its ground during a day driven by stalled Iran ceasefire negotiations and rising oil prices.

BNB price was fighting to stay above $625 on April 28 as CryptoPotato reported that most large-cap crypto assets were in the red, with Ethereum below $2,300, XRP below $1.40, and BTC stalling below $77,000. The total crypto market cap shed over $30 billion on the day, but BNB’s relative resilience placed it among the better performers in the top ten by market cap, continuing a pattern of outperformance that has characterized BNB against major altcoins for several weeks.

BNB Price Holds as Market Digests Iran Talks and FOMC Pressure

As crypto.news reported, the April 28 decline was driven primarily by renewed Iran ceasefire uncertainty and a return of Brent crude above $104 a barrel, compressing risk appetite across crypto, equities, and emerging market assets simultaneously. BNB’s relative stability compared to Ethereum and Bitcoin reflects its different demand driver profile: while BTC and ETH price action on April 28 was dominated by macro risk-off flows, BNB’s price is structurally tied to Binance exchange revenue, BNB Chain transaction volume, and the deflationary supply dynamics created by its quarterly auto-burn mechanism. Those internal demand drivers did not deteriorate on April 28, insulating BNB partially from the macro-driven selling that hit assets with less embedded utility demand.

Why the April 15 Burn and XBNB Launch Frame the Current Price Range

The April 28 session takes place less than two weeks after Binance’s 35th quarterly auto-burn on April 15, which removed 2.14 million BNB worth approximately $1.32 billion in what Binance described as one of its largest single quarterly deflationary events. As crypto.news documented, that burn reduced total BNB supply below 135 million tokens, continuing the protocol’s trajectory toward its 100 million hard cap, and analysts at InvestingHaven and Coinpedia separately cited the burn’s deflationary impact as a catalyst for the price range of $590 to $900 they project for BNB in 2026. The launch of Teucrium’s XBNB on April 25, the first US-listed 2x daily leveraged BNB futures ETF, adds a new institutional access layer but also introduces potential amplified selling pressure during market-wide drawdowns, which may partly explain BNB’s tight range on April 28 rather than a sharper fall or a significant gain.

What the BNB Chain Ecosystem Adds to the Price Stability Case

BNB’s performance relative to other altcoins on down days reflects structural demand from within the BNB Chain ecosystem. As crypto.news tracked, BNB Chain has become the leading blockchain for autonomous AI agent deployments, surpassing 150,000 on-chain agents in April 2026, with 43,750% growth since January representing a demand driver that operates independently of macro sentiment. BNB Chain’s 2026 roadmap targets 20,000 transactions per second with sub-second finality, and the network’s 15 million daily transactions and opBNB Layer-2 activity provide a baseline of gas fee burns that continuously remove BNB from circulation. The $628 support level that technical analysts have identified as the critical floor for BNB’s current structure must hold through the FOMC meeting on April 28 and 29 for the bullish scenario targeting $645 to $650 resistance to remain intact.

BNB entered April 28 trading near its 50-day EMA at approximately $625 to $628, in a consolidation range that has held since the April 2 low of $573, representing a roughly 10% recovery that has consistently outpaced Ethereum’s recovery from its own April low.

TLDR:

• South Africa’s draft Capital Flow Management Regulations propose approval requirements for all crypto transactions above a set threshold.
  
• Luno is preparing a formal submission urging the National Treasury to classify locally held crypto assets as onshore assets.
  
• The draft rules require users to declare all crypto holdings within 30 days of the regulations taking effect in South Africa.
  
• Luno is collaborating with industry stakeholders to present a unified response aimed at shaping a fair and practical regulatory outcome.

---

Luno is calling for a fairer regulatory framework as South Africa’s National Treasury reviews its draft Capital Flow Management Regulations.

The proposed rules introduce new controls on crypto asset transactions, including approval requirements and declaration obligations.

Luno, a licensed crypto asset service provider in South Africa, has raised concerns about the practical effects these rules may have on everyday users.

The exchange is preparing a formal submission to the Treasury and is working alongside industry stakeholders to shape a more balanced outcome.

Why Luno Is Pushing Back on the Draft Rules

The draft regulations propose extending exchange control requirements to all crypto asset transactions. This goes beyond the traditional scope of South Africa’s existing capital flow rules. Ordinarily, such controls apply when capital moves across borders, not within the country itself.

Under the current proposal, any transaction to buy, sell, borrow, or lend crypto above a yet-to-be-determined threshold would need National Treasury approval.

This applies even to transactions between two parties located within South Africa. Luno argues that this level of oversight is disproportionate for domestic activity.

LunoGlobal has stated publicly that while it supports modernising the ageing exchange control framework, the current draft poses hurdles for everyday crypto users.

These hurdles, the exchange warns, could slow South Africa’s growth as a global fintech leader. Luno’s concern is that the rules create friction without adequate justification.

The exchange is now collaborating with other crypto industry players to build a collective response. The goal is to ensure that the industry’s voice carries weight in the Treasury’s final decision.

Luno believes a coordinated approach will lead to a more practical and fair outcome for all South African crypto users.

What Luno Wants and How Users Can Participate

At the centre of Luno’s advocacy is a specific classification request. The exchange wants crypto assets held on a licensed local provider to be treated as onshore assets.

This would mean such holdings do not count against offshore investment thresholds like the Single Discretionary Allowance or the Foreign Investment Allowance.

The draft also requires users to declare all crypto holdings within 30 days of the regulations coming into force. Users seeking transaction approval must also state the intended purpose of that transaction.

If the purpose changes, they may be required to sell their crypto assets, adding further complexity to routine activity.

Luno’s formal submission to the National Treasury will advocate for a framework that addresses illicit activity without burdening ordinary users.

The exchange has made clear that compliance and growth should not work against each other. A well-designed framework can achieve both, without unnecessary restrictions.

The public participation phase is currently open, and the Treasury has invited comment from all parties. Members of the public can submit their views by emailing the National Treasury directly.

The full draft regulations are available on the National Treasury’s official website for anyone wishing to review them before submitting comments.